The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to
use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

Please Log In to Continue

Is this designed to target a similar niche to Test::TAP::Model and co?

By the way, I think Test::TAP::Parser would be "better" on the basis that, a) I dislike the name TAP, b) because it's ungooglable, and testing newbies (i.e. the ones who really don't need any barrier to testing) are going to find it easier to search cpan under Test as opposed to TAP, and c) there's already prior art under Test::TAP as above.

I have no control over the name "TAP", so that part will not change. Also, even though it looks like it belongs under the Test:: namespace, it don't think it does, though I'm not too worried about it. TAP::Parser has nothing to do with tests. All it does is parse the TAP protocol [cpan.org] and gives you an OO interface for examining results. If something doesn't parse, it throws an exception with a clear message as to why (though I should probably push errors onto a stack and report all of them at once).

Oh, sure, pet peeve aside, I agree that the TAP "brand" is a good idea and should be part of the module name, sorry to overstate the case! It looks like it could become a useful part of a testing infrastructure toolkit.

Searching CPAN for
TAP [cpan.org] only comes up with TAP.pm though (a documentation-only package describing the protocol) in the top-level namespace. Or am I missing something?